tv [untitled] July 15, 2014 6:00am-6:31am PDT
next. just wanted to show you this area of [speaker not understood] creek. the project was designed based upon criteria that we had been using of 16 inches of rise by 20 50, 55 inches by 20 '02 100. we look at the design life project, 50 year design life, takes us out to 20 65. we're looking about 28 inches of see level rise by that point. ~ sea level rise by that point. this is a low lying area of the city ~. and this particular location between two bridges at illinois street and third street is a low spot. we designed the park to kind of raise that area up such that by 20 65 we meet the criteria to prevent overtoppingusing the 28 inches. i'll just throw up a couple slides with the current criteria which changed a little bit, but not too much. here's the 100 year still water
inundation map at 2015. so, when the project is built. and you can see there's a little dot in the center of the screen. that's the project location. there are some areas of flooding along the creek. this project is not one of them. using the current guidance being recommended from the city -- >> s.f. adopt? >> s.f. adopt, thank you. you look at a range of sea level rise. so, 20 65, the lowest 7 inches we're okay. 20 65 [speaker not understood], 17 inches, we plan for 28. you can see flooding in the area. the park will not flood -- this is a tool that we've been using in engineering and planning. its doesn't account for the new construction. there's 20 65 with 33 inches.
so, considerable flooding in the area. and if we want to look at 2100 what the maximum projection is, we have problems. so, this goes to show what some of the challenges are taking projects forward right now with the sea level rise guidance. and if we're looking at individual projects we're only looking at small pieces of the puzzle. this is one small piece of the puzzle of the creek. it's a park. it looks like it's good till 20 65. we can make it good till 20 5. people can enjoy it through then ~. it is currently not being used for public open space at all. so, it seems like it's a good use of funds. we're not building a building out there or anything that's highly critical infrastructure. so, it work.
but there is an overall plan that needs to happen for the creek moving forward as well as many other areas. the waterfront, you'll hear about that next. and, so, to finish up, in summary, port staff recommend that the port authorize the award of construction contract no. 27 58 r bayview gateway park project, environmental landscape construction, incorporated, the last responsive responsible bidder in the amount of $3,667,925. and further authorize staff to increase the contract amount through -- contract amount of occasional change order if needed contingencies, to show $366,793, which is 10% of the contract amount to a total not to exceed 4,034,718 dollars. are there any question? >> so moved. >> second. >> take public comment.
seeing none, commissioners? questions? >> thank you very much. this is a wonderful report and i'm so looking forward to this new park. can you tell us a little bit about what the park is going to look at what we're getting for 3.7 million? >> we can go back to the slide show. so, this is an aerial view site plan. the park is between third and cargo. the big moves are on the creekside, the existing wharf is demolished. and then a 10-foot wide walkway is built over the water right adjacent to the existing seawall. the existing seawall is not a fact. it runs from third street, essentially the new entrance to the fire station, [speaker not understood] the fire station mid-block, then jogs back over land. and then we have a plaza area
with tables and seating. adjacent to the waterfront as it approaches illinois street. you can see the grove of trees. they will be the feature -- is it down here? david, do you know if the trees are -- >> david [speaker not understood] with planning and development. so, the trees, the planting theme is based on the historic use of the area for food, food related industry. so, there is the importing of grain that came in. the creek what historically known as an area for native americans to gather berries and cherries and the food warehouses are nearby. of course, it was once a butcher town. so, the planting scheme for the park is basically food based.
there might be food bearing fruit. so, lemonseses possibly in the tree grove. the other part of the park include information about the port's maritime history of the site and the general cultural and natural resources of the site ~. >> wonderful. so, the circle near the wharf, what do those represent? >> by illinois street? >> no, by the wharf. >> i think there is a bench -- the six dark image are benches and the large circle -- green circles are trees. >> in the creek? kind of the wavy creek edge? >> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 circles [speaker not understood]. >> tree. >> those are trees? okay. >> and under the trees would be
additional picnic tables and seating. >> got it. so, all the circles are trees? >> all the green circles are trees. the large gray circle is a plaza which orients its viewer to the grain silos and the [speaker not understood]. >> and the interpretive elements, what would those be? >> the interpretive element would be along the railing along the creek and there will be some retaining walls and seating areas within the plaza. >> great. thank you. >> steve, i just wanted to say i was happy because one of the concerns of the commission is that we try to get more exposure to more people being able to get bids and i see that you got five. were you happy and do you think we can do in the future? i always believe more transparency. the more people that know about there are bid, more people -- some people come to the port commission and say we didn't know that was out to bid.
what did you guys really do to get it out there so people knew about it? we want to make it an equal playing field for big bidder and small bidders. >> early on in the stages of design, any conversation that i had or tim leone had was open notice that the project was coming up. this is a year out. it's on the radar screen. so, that really helped. the prebid meeting was at the contract assistance center. i think thats was great. the contractors assistance center is out from -- candlestick, bayview, fairly new. p.u.c. has started it, but it's for use for all the city and the contract -- anybody that wants to do work for the city can go there, get advice for free, learn about the specifics of bidding san francisco projects. so, out of the meeting there we
actually got great attendance. we advertised through all the normal trade journalseses and newspapers. the business associations. so, there's a list. i think i put it ~ it's starting a list, it's in the advertisement staff report for december. i think that really helped. and we also -- we do say what we want to be a port that you choose as a business. you come to us, you know, we want to be your best client. and the city has made some headway in standardizing specifications and standardizing [speaker not understood] for construction projects as a way to resolve disputes early on. and keep projects moving rather than stalled. and i think that that word is
getting around the contractor community. >> following up on just a little bit of commissioner adams' question, i remember many months back -- this is a result of some of the issues we had to resolve with previous contracts, we've had some issues with the contractor. and i just wanted to make sure, because as i understood it, we had a new procedure and elaine was the one that explained it to us. this contractor has done a lot of work for the port and i'm not picking on them particularly, but i just want to know from a process standpoint that we actually checked out, that there were no issues either with us or with any other city agency so that while we followed this little -- the responsive lowest bid, we want to make sure that it's quality and we don't find out that we have change orders later or that there are some other issues that come up that we then have to resolve, which we know is painful. >> elaine forbes again. my apology if i misled you.
we're not yet instituting the check performance. this is a proposal that the controller's office has put forward based on an audit that looked at best practices in other jurisdictions that said looking at prior performance of contractors is the preferred method with bidding new work. however, the city is in the process of reviewing that audit and all the chapter 6 departments are working together to propose changes to chapter 6. the port has expressed our strong desire that prior performance be included as its growing criteria or as a responsiveness criteria. and, so, we are engaged in that process and asked the controller's office to come to the commission and talk about the best practices and chapter 6 changes. but at this point in time, the city has not yet adopted those changes. >> this was not part of the selection criteria. as i read this report, its was based on price.
>> it's standard california state contract as well. >> i understand that. but we're trying to -- [multiple voices] >> lessons that we've learned the hard way. >> we did include some requirements for experience. so, you had to have experience driving piles. you had to have experience demolishing a structure over the water. a certain number of years' experience. >> so, they have the expertise in the area -- >> expertise, [speaker not understood] contractor. [laughter] >> exactly, we've learned. we want to know. but let me just ask a general question since they have done a fair amount of work, this general contractor. would we say in general this contractor ha done good work for the port? >> yes, we would, yes. >> most of the commissioners are concerned about, we don't have open litigation again because we had some bad experience. it sounds like they've done some of their projects and they're qualified.
it's a great project and -- last week, could certainly do with a [speaker not understood] out there. good job, thank you. >> thank you. it looks exciting and it's definitely much needed, but i also want to thank you on a different front. many months ago, probably nine months or so, i think the commission requested that going forward, whenever a project is presented to us that staff report on the impact of sea level rise on the project. and you did an absolutely fabulous job of showing that impact. so, i want to thank you for incorporating that in the presentation. i appreciate it. >> i have no more questions. who is going to be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the park? >> that would be tom carter. [laughter] >> [speaker not understood]. >> upkeep and maintenance.
we have a year long maintenance period for landscaping in the contract similar to -- we develop [speaker not understood]. other than that initial year long maintenance of landscaping only, it's port maintenance. >> okay. it's a great question, commissioner. when we come to you next month on our item on the waterfront land use plan, you'll be astounded at how much open space we've added to the portfolio. and in recent budgets you have given us -- budgeted to get the additional gardner on board, but this is the challenge we're going to have going forward, is continued maintenance and security. so, it's a great story, but it is changing up this model a little bit. thank you. more to follow. thank you for the question. >> thanks. >> thank you. next item.
sorry, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? abstentions? item 11 carries. >> item 12 a, informational presentation on the city and county of san francisco's draft guidance for incorporating sea level rise into capital planning in san francisco: assessing vulnerability, risk, and adaptation. draft slr guidance. >> good afternoon, commissioners, president, vice president, and fellow commissioners. monique and staff, and the public. my name is laura nizel. i'm a senior planner in
planning department here. today i will be talking about the city and county of san francisco's draft guidance for incorporating sea level rise into capital planning in san francisco, assessing mobility, risk and adaptation. ~ vulnerability this guidance document is the result of approximately nine months of work of collaboration and consensus by seven different departments in the city. one of them is represented here today. our colleague, david b.haar, he is the climate program director for the sfpuc. and also ~ the chair of the sea level rise committee. so, he's an important part in this effort. and this is an informational item only. there will be no action required. however, at the end of my presentation i welcome any comments or questions related to the guidance. as you know, the city is
addressing climate change in two ways. first, through climate action which are measures intend today stabilize climate change by reducing greenhouse gases. the port's climate action efforts were presented to you in january by my colleague rich berman. secondly, the city has initiated efforts to begin to address climate change adaptation through the creation of the s.f. adapt committee. an interdepartment at working group convened at the request of [speaker not understood]. as part of this effort a committee was formed to address sea level rise. mayor lee requested that this committee develop guidelines for addressing the sea level rise in the capital planning process. we at the port have an opportunity now to consider how we want to incorporate those guidelines into our capital planning process. today i will be presenting these guidelines to you. this presentation will cover current port of san francisco
sea level rise efforts, why do we care, and what are we doing about it. sea level rise estimates for san francisco, review of the draft guidance document, relevant guidelines and local efforts, an update on current port of san francisco sea level rise adaptation efforts and a discussion of next steps. as you can see, king tides, storm surges and wind waves are already overtopping the embarcadaro and the frequency and severity of these events will increase. however concerned by 20 50, [speaker not understood], pier 5, most of the embarcadaro promenade, mission creek area and pier 52 boat launch. by 2100, the entire san francisco waterfront is expected to get inundated. as sea level rises, the groundwater table will also rise, increasing the potential for liquefaction and [speaker not understood] and challenging the integrity of the seawall.
why do we care and what are we doing about it? prer vation of port's real estate portfolio is crucial to the survival of the port. critical infrastructure such as bart, muni, s.f.p.u.c., and department of public works assets are located within our jurisdiction and may be vulnerable. who is paying attention? this group called s.f. adapt and the sea level rise committee in particular that consists of representatives of 7 city departments as well as two consultant teams, and we have developed a strategy which is included in this guidance. we have collaborated to develop a how-to guide to incorporate sea level rise into capital planning and project design. why the guidelines? well, interdepartmental collaboration is essential for prioritizing risk and developing adaptation measures. use of consistent signs, assumptions and methods across
departments will facilitate project funding and implementation. initially the guidelines were requested to be prepared for the capital planning committee. however, they ultimately may have application city-wide. how will we develop these guidelines? we did extensive research on guidelines from other jurisdictions. we looked at the best available science, methods, and method for aloe volume waiting risk and planning for adaptation ~ and we also looked at existing city projects were considering sea level rise in our planning. our research looked at vulnerability and risk assessments and adaptation plans from cities such as new york city, new orleans, seattle, san diego, florida and the gulf coast. example, existing development projects in the bay area that incorporating sea level rise into the design and planning include much of the puc's sewer and stormwater improvements,
treasure island redevelopment, pier 70 redevelopment project, and seawall lot 337. this slide shows a comparison of the sea level rise estimates that were done by our consultant cos back in 2011 averts us sea level rise estimates that were developed by the national research council. and at this time the use of the national research council or nrc projections [speaker not understood] appropriate for capital planning purposes because they encompass the best available science, have been derived considering local and regional processes and conditionses and they're used as consistent with current state guidelines. we know for sure that we will have sea level rise, but ultimately it will be difficult to predict. uncertainty increases over time
because of uncertainty in greenhouse gas emission trends, uncertainty in the sensitivity of climate factors to greenhouse gas increases, and the skill of climate models. given these uncertainties, the nrc members recommend best available science to date. these numbers have been adopted by the state of california and the coastal commission. the urs members are based on 2009 projections by [speaker not understood] and [speaker not understood] and modeling using historic sea levels and are no longer the most accurate predictions. this table presents nrc's report sea level rise best estimates for san francisco relative to the year 2000. the table represents the local projections, mean plus or minus one standard deviation. these projections, for example, 36 plus or minus 10 inches in 2100 represent the likely sea level rise based on a moderate
level of greenhouse gas emissionses and extrapolation of continued accelerating land ice melt patterns plus or minus one standard deviation. extremeliness, for example, 17 or 66 inches for 2100, represent unlikely but possible levels of sea level rise utilizing very low and very high submission scenarios and at the high end including trig land ice melt that is not anticipated at this time but could occur. the nrc report is also notable for providing regional estimates of relative sea level rise for the west coast, which include the sum of contributions from the local thermal expansion of sea water, ~ wave components, land ice melting and vertical land [speaker not understood]. as you can tell the sea level rise is quite complex. on top of consideration of just sea level rise when looking at planning for flooding and how
to avert -- how to protect our assets, we need to look at the effects of tides, storm surge, storm wave, and [speaker not understood]. tides in san francisco can range from 5 to 7 feet. storm surge can be 1-1/2 to 3 feet. storm waves 1 to 4 feet. the sfpuc has just published maps which can be used to model increments of sea level rise over mean high, high water levels and consider storm surge and hazard. though are the amounts that we recommend that the city team use for modeling the vulnerabilities. the guidance includes a four-step process to consider sea level rise effects. two additional steps 5 and 6 are recommended to be determined by each specific project component. the first step in the process is the review of science.
in this case you would choose a sea level rise estimate and we're recommending the nrc numbers. on top of that you would consider storm surge, storm waves and run up. and thin you would select a sea level rise scenario based on the life-span of your facility, ~ location, and the consequence of the flooding on that facility. then you could use the sea level rise inundation maps to model the -- and determine when and to what extent flooding will occur on your facility. for instance, project managers may choose to plan now for the high end of the uncertainty range, for an example, 6 inches in 2100, or we may -- it may be more appropriate to plan for the most likely scenario by 2100 which would be 36 inches while completing sensitivity analysis and testing and developing other adaptation measures that can be -- that can [speaker not understood]
facility accommodate that sea level rise at the high end at a later date. this would accommodate uncertainties in the science and also allow through flexibility should the higher end of sea level rise become an actuality. the neck step in the process is assessing vulnerability. and the first step is to evaluate the exposure of your asset, which is whereby one me you'rex the degree to which an asset is exposed by the type, magnitude and duration. neder, we would use the maps to see the depth of planning due to sea level rise, wave run up and storm surge and determine how far a distance, over what mile area that scenario would be vulnerable. the next part of the vulnerability assessment is to assess the sensitivity of the asset. basically, it looks at the degree to which the asset is affected. in other words, will there be
temporary flooding which would have a minimum -- minimal impact on the facility, or would the flooding cause a total shut down of a particular asset? then the next step in the assessment is to determine or look at the resiliency, toshibav ~ -- total resilience of an asset. : you adjust to climate change to moderate potential damages to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. for instance, abating floods that have been designed to have foundations elevated as needed has adaptive capacity and is therefore more resilient than if you have a power plant that floods and has to shut down. that power plant would have a low resilience and a low adaptive capacity. assets to be -- assets found to be vulnerable in this vulnerability assessment would
move on to the next step, which is the risk assessment. and in our guidelines we provided a vulnerability matrix tool to assist project managers in helping to rate vulnerabilities of particular assets. the risk assessment process involves comparing the likelihood of a asset to be cot consequences of the flooding. for sea level rise, we are assuming that the likelihood is yes. in other words, we know that sea level will rise. we just don't know exactly how -- to what extent. evaluating the consequences using criteria such as risk to human life, cost of reconstruction or repair, the economic impact of a particular disruption, the length of disruption, or the irreversibility of the destruction are criteria that you would be using to look at how -- what level of risk
you're willing to accept if, in fact, that asset gets flooded. determining the level of risk will help you prioritize for the next step, which is adaptation planning in which you prioritize which assets would need to be looked at first. and the guidance also provides a tool for weighting the risk of your different assets based on criteria that individual departments can develop for themselves. the adaptation planning process is the final plan that we talked about in the guidelines. during this phase adaptation started to develop for the most vulnerable assets with the highest consequence rating. capacity of a building system or operation to adapt must be considered and strategies for building resilience developed. some typical adaptation
strategies include raising foundations, mandating setbacks, providing shoreline protection systems. all of those, and there are plenty of other policy related adaptive strategies that we can develop during that adaptation planning process. implementing adaptation planning measures will be an iterative process and assumptions will be to updated and required funding and resource he to be successful. going forward sea level rises, the adaptive capacity of facilities [speaker not understood] should be monitored to ensure continued resilience. so, that summarizes the actual process that we recommend for going through the risk assessment and an adaptation planning for both assets as well as areas within the city. further, some of the guidelines that are currently being u